Everyone is collectively used to burning fossil fuels without paying the true cost, and wrings their hands when they have to pay for their use case with zero emissions technology. The value of clean air is proven from scientific research on emissions.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/air-pollution...
(In particular, there is a usecase for artificially made fuel from air-captured CO2 - superior energy density and durability compared to batteries.)
> In the early 2020s, however, total smog-forming emissions from small engines are projected to exceed those from passenger cars in the South Coast Air Basin because passenger car emissions will continue to decrease. By 2031, small engine emissions will be more than twice those from passenger cars.
And from the bill itself (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...):
>In 2020, California daily NOx and ROG emissions from SORE were higher than emissions from light-duty passenger cars. SORE emitted an average of 16.8 tons per day of NOx and 125 tons per day of ROG. Without further regulatory action, those emission levels are expected to increase with increasing numbers of SORE in California. Regulations of emissions from SORE have not been as stringent as regulations of other engines, and one hour of operation of a commercial leaf blower can emit as much ROG plus NOx as driving 1,100 miles in a new passenger vehicle.
And how about planes, generation plants, etc?
As for airplanes, power plants and other large-scale users of fossil fuels: like cars and unlike gas-powered lawn tools, they tend to more carefully manage combustion to burn cleaner, and power plants can treat exhaust (like cars do with catalytic converters). So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people.
"So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people."
Per gallon. Lawn equipment is is a tiny fraction compared to these others. Airports tend to be in cities, power plants tend to be close to population centers, most people have a road in front of their house... sounds like those are close to people, output more overall, and are used more frequently than once every week or two.
It does. If you don't believe the source, then take that up with CARB. But don't act like information provided by a government regulator is hearsay.
(Also, I've never seen a catalytic converter on a four-stroke lawn mower.)
No reason they can't put catalytic converters on.
If we really want to be green, then why not require reel mowers?
The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries.
> If we really want to be green, then why not require reel mowers?
Grow up.
Responses like this violate the rules for the site and undermine HN as a place of discussion. I would love to hear a real argument.
"The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries."
The ECU is a joke, and not a necessary part of using a catalytic converter. You can run a pi zero or audrino as an ECU.
The catalytic converter would be more expensive than not having one, but not that expensive. You might be assuming they would cost the same as one for a car, but they would be drastically scaled down. You can find new catalytic converters for small cars for under $100.
You don't deserve a real argument. "Why not require reel mowers?" isn't a serious question. Figuring out an answer takes only a few moments of thought, or reading the first section of the law in question, wherein the legislature lays out the rationale and justification for the regulation. (The whole law is just over 600 words, so reading it is quick and easy.) The question is just a cheap rhetorical trick.
If you actually have trouble coming up with an answer to that question, or if you think banning all forms of powered mowers would actually be a sensible public policy, then you're welcome to share your thoughts on the matter in more detail. Until then, there's no reason for anyone to take such a silly and provocative question at face value.
That's not rhetoric. It's a real question. Reel mowers don't produce emissions, don't require batteries which harm the environment, don't require electricity to be generated and transmitted, don't require copper or electronics, and they force people to get exercise. The arguments here have been that batteries are good enough for most lawns because most lawns are small. If most lawns are small, then reel mowers are a suitable replacement as well. If it was really about the environment and people's health, then they should be pushing reel mowers.
Yes, there are potential benefits to your Modest Proposal. But none of them provide any further improvement to the specific harms that the law in question explicitly seeks to reduce. Instead, you ignore those stated objectives and pretend that the law has (or should have) much broader goals, so that you can propose a much more radical alternative. And you haven't tried to explain how your proposal would be a reasonable tradeoff given its obvious and considerable downsides. You've also thrown in a bit of a straw-man ("If most lawns are small, then reel mowers are a suitable replacement as well"). I'm still not seeing a reason to take you seriously.